7 Replies to "HALA REZONING: New date for Morgan Junction workshop; Admiral version 3 days away; another Westwood-Highland Park meeting planned"

• H February 8, 2017 (3:36 pm)

  I really appreciate the Westwood-Highland Park HALA meeting on March 1 and will be in attendance. Come join me Westwood neighbors :)

• Scarlett RJ February 8, 2017 (5:55 pm)

  Observation on the City’s Housing Affordability and
  Livability Agenda (HALA) process.

  Having recently attended  the City HALA Junction presentation at the senior center as
  an observer to the proceedings,  it
  became apparent that that the presentation was actually a somewhat poorly
  controlled lecture program on HALA. 
  Presenters made heroic attempts to control the audience and
  questions.  A piece of half sheet notepaper
  was handed out before the meeting to write all of your questions about HALA
  during the lecture and submit them to the moderators for questions time at the
  end.  At the end of the lecture, a
  half hour was saved by the moderators, to address a few questions.  This was a great idea because it
  controlled the process, limited open conversation from the group, which was
  quite large and restive, and allowed the presenter to stay on message by
  reading the questions, for which, well defined responses were prepared.  

   

  Overarching concerns included questions about why the City
  was not waiting, or coordinating  with
  ST3 station plans.  ST3 does not
  know where they are going to put their very large station.  No real answer was provided that seemed
  to answer the question.  I did
  wonder what would happen if Rite Aid was developed into a new Whittaker, and
  ST3 then decided that the Rite Aid lot was the only place suitable for the
  station.  The audience could not
  fathom why the processes are not consolidated or coordinated to prevent tearing
  something down you probably just spend a lot of money to build.   Since property purchase for ST3
  won’t happen until 2023-2025, many structures might be built in the ideal
  station site by then.  This, of
  course, could mean two teardowns and two rebuilds on the same site. Oh well.

   

  I also noted the city produced significant reassurances to
  the audience that land value property taxes would not increase.  The City later revised this statement
  to a “small increase”.  References
  to the Roosevelt neighborhood were mentioned, minus specific data.   During the breakout groups, I
  listened carefully to questions again about taxes and heard something new.  City staffers then said that taxes
  would go up about 30 percent within the first 5 years.  This was in contrast to the statement
  made to 200 audience members about 45 minutes prior.   By my estimates
  this would be probably about $1500 a year.

   

  The next cries from the audience were about the Junction neighborhood
  plan and the City’s attempt to ignore the plan.  City folks stayed on message that the plan was old and
  outdated.   The city did not mention why this plan,
  which they appear to abhor, is repeatedly adopted by the city in every new revision
  of the comprehensive plan.  Nor did
  they mention attempting to update the plan with community involvement as
  Delridge is currently doing.  Promises
  of parks, infrastructure and other improvements specified in the plan have been
  few and far between, or non-existence, per the audience and this seems borne
  out by a quick stroll through the Junction.  The Rapid Ride, referred to by some attendees as the Crowded
  Ride did come in exchange for the loss of other routes.  Is there a net gain in bus
  service?  It’s hard to
  determine.  If you live on
  California or Fauntleroy south the Morgan Junction, this is apparent.  If you live elsewhere, it appears there
  is a net loss in service.

   

  City officials noted that the HALA program will provide only
  500 new Junction homes in the next 20 years. One member of the audience noted
  that could be build right now without expansion by up-zoning in the triangle between
  Fauntleroy, Avalon, and 35^th.  An interesting option well worth discussing?

   

  Audience members clearly did not oppose affordable housing
  and spoke repeatedly about supporting  such housing. 
  What most caught their ire was that they clearly were not going to get any
  affordable housing in the Junction guaranteed at all.  Well-informed audience attendees were quite aware that the
  village up-zone and expansion resulted after Mayor Murray’s failed attempt to
  eliminate all single family zoning citywide.   They see the new plan, marketed as “only affecting 6%
  of SFR”, as a first bite of the same apple.  After all who will notice the loss of those homes?  The other 94 % will just be thankful it
  didn’t happen to them. A cautionary note was mentioned that 100 % loss was, and
  may be, the intended goal, this was just the start.   Multiple options for abiding by the City’s commitment
  to preserve the SFR community in the Junction were provided to the City
  officials and their contractors during the small group meetings held after the
  large room lectures.  The
  contractors were hired by the City to facilitate and take notes were a mixed
  bag.  Some wrote down the
  suggestions, and others didn’t bother until called to task.  This is an inefficient way to get input
  and for others to hear the ideas of their neighbors.  It is a very good approach for controlling the masses and
  was mostly successful.  The City
  can be congratulated on this strategy. 
  It effectively limited almost all open group discussion by neighbors
  within the larger group.  The city
  would loose complete control of the process by allowing an open forum of a
  large group of people and this clearly is not desirable. 

   

  I overheard one question of City employee when asked
  directly what the Junction gets for having their homes rezoned and the village expanded?  The only reply was “affordable housing”
  and the City person insisted it would be in village.  The city employee could state of no other benefit.  This was lost opportunity, and at a
  minimum he could have said better restaurants.   This was the same City official captured on video ostensibly
  and meekly apologizing when one SFR resident confronted him about the City’s
  intentions for her neighbors and her SFR home.  The resident asked what was supposed to happen “so you just
  want us (meaning our homes) all to go away”?   The City worker responded “sorry”.  This was a huge blunder.  Never show your obvious intentions and
  particularly on video.

   

  Just what does the up-zone of several SFR blocks to 40-foot
  apartment complexes mean?  It
  appears to mean homes being surrounded by 40 foot and higher verticals
  walls.  This won’t last long
  however. The logic here is to reach the desired effect the City intends.  Once one of the many seniors die, or
  one of the several small rentals are sold, the homes on that street will be
  bought by developers.  They will build
  to the planned up-zoning maximum. 
  Because we can be sure that living on a street subject to continuous
  construction work for years, is highly unpleasant, the rest of the neighborhood
  quickly collapses to demolition.  After the first house goes, the remaining properties are only
  worth the land value, so it will be easy to pick up the other lots at a bargain
  price-and maybe even some short sells. 
  This would certainly be my strategy as a Developer and it is an
  excellent strategy for the desired end.

   

  Audience members attempted to show City officials that their
  plan was woefully off the mark. 
  Because Junction property is extremely expensive, no contractor would
  pay to put affordable housing in an overpriced area. They get far more bang for
  the buck in cheaper areas.  
  Also no Developer is going to hamstring sale of a newly developed
  building for 75 years of rent control on a unit when they might have to pay a
  fee (or maybe not) that would be passed on in the sales price anyway.   The idea of capitalism, in its
  most refined art form, is to maximize profit and move on the next profit-making
  venture.  That is how wealth is
  accumulated.  This coincides with
  other City officials private statements, recognizing all the affordable housing
  units would, of course, go into the areas of the city where low-income people
  live now.  Audience members did
  vent their spleens referencing this as City sanctioned redlining.   They appear to think the City is,
  in the best simile of a used care salesman, is doing a very large bait and
  switch.   Unfortunately the City was unable to provide any credible
  evidence that the Junction would get any affordable housing.  A missed opportunity or there isn’t any
  evidence?

   

  I heard comments about the Grand Bargain, the Grand Boodogle
  and so forth.  It appears the City
  entered into a closed-door agreement with some very large developers.  The result was:  you agree to not sue us and promise to
  pay the HALA fee-don’t worry it’s not much, and we give you and everyone else
  large scale up zones throughout the city.   The developers who demolish SFR and do small
  commercial projects did not agree to this Grand Bargain, and have publicly announced
  a promise to sue the city over HALA fees. 
  Will they win, probably?    

   

  So what does this all mean to casual observer of the
  process?

  Residents of the Junction think the City is misguided at
  best and at worst, down right dishonest. 
  Does the City want them to move and have their homes demolished for new development?
  Well, yes, and they have said so privately and that is point of the entire up-zone.  Is the City listening to residents? They
  claim they are, but it is hard to see just how?  Shelbly’s was no real venue for feed back by mores than a
  handful of people.  The January 26^th
  meeting was a little better but still no real open forum to captures area
  concerns.

   

   City folks have
  already privately said this plan will go through as is and they don’t actually
  care what the neighborhoods say. 
  Quite frankly, they don’t have to “They are the City”.   Will this mean backlash against
  the City and their staff, you can bet on that.  

  • Mark Schletty February 9, 2017 (8:03 am)

    Scarlett has got this one right. Believe what Scarlett says. Plus the net result of this upzone, with no requirement for any local affordable housing, will be a huge increase in traffic congestion. The people working in the new commercial spaces will not be able to afford the housing being built and will have to commute from elsewhere, where there will be affordable housing built.

• Elevated Concerns February 9, 2017 (1:15 pm)

  I would like to know why it will take “possibly a month to 6 weeks” to write up all of the questions that were written with the answers from the city.  The city is confident that they can render an Environmental Impact Statement in less time!  The Cedar River Group was hired for our meeting because they know how to control input such as not taking one note at my table.  

• tuesdayjane February 9, 2017 (9:36 pm)

  I for one am very thankful for the local community members that have put their minds and time to this. Thank you for investing so much in spite of the fact that your well thought out objections are likely to fall on deaf ears.

  Make no mistake, this re-zoning being  rammed  through with little care for the actual people affected  is authoritarianism. The interaction with the community in WS has been perfunctory at best.  It is a tremendous shame that the same people that will rail against authoritarianism on a national level will execute it locally without a second thought. The hypocrisy is thick. This issue will affect West Seattle deeply and you can be sure it won’t be an issue forgotten when the next election rolls around. What a sad state of affairs.

  • Nom de Plume February 9, 2017 (11:27 pm)

    Spot on.  Ironically, Councilmember Rob Johnson says that we are the hypocrites.  He says that if you support single family housing, then you also must support Trump:

    “it’s really disturbing for me when I hear … somebody talking about how glad they were to see the neighborhood district councils stand up for single-family zoning and then in the next breath disparage the president for wanting to build a wall between the US and Mexico. I see those two things as actually linked.”

    – Councilmember Rob Johnson, chair of the Seattle Land Use Committee

    Citation: https://thecisforcrank.com/…/morning-crank-the-right-side-…/

• Peter February 10, 2017 (7:44 am)

  >> you can be sure it won’t be an issue forgotten when the next election rolls around.  <<  I so wish this would be true.  Unfortunately, past experience leads me to believe otherwise.   It’s as if the majority of voters enjoy watching their neighborhoods become less livable while the cost of housing goes up, either through taxes, or  through rent which must cover the increasing property taxes. and other expenses.  Yes, I know taxes and fees (such as RRIO) are only part of the reason rents go up, but they’re reasons nonetheless.

  Nom is spot on about the hypocrisy too.  This is all about big money going into the city coffers and nothing about quality of life for those impacted, or actual affordable housing outside of areas that already have comparatively affordable housing.  As more and more existing (mostly modest) housing is taken off the market and replaced by new, denser and more expensive structures, housing costs will have to rise to cover the costs.  And yet, city “leadership” wants you to think they’re concerned about how much it costs to rent in Seattle.     Right.

Sorry, comment time is over.